Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Committee, my name is Mary Cavanaugh, and
I was asked here today to provide a historical perspective on the issue
of sexual harassment in the VA.

On
September 17, 1992, I gave testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations for the Committee on Veterans Affairs. At
that time I have suffered the reprisal of being reassigned out of a management-track
position after testifying on behalf of a sexually harassed employee.

Those
of us who testified on that day had attracted national attention in part,
because we were responsible for initiating a grass roots movement of women
throughout the VA known as WASH (Women Against Sexual Harassment) who
were fed up with being punished for exposing the problem of sexual harassment
in the VA.

The
intent of this group was to provide support and information to other women
in the Agency who were being victimized.

The
problems that were defined at this hearing were twofold: (1) how do you
prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, and (2) how do you prevent
further victimization from an agency who seeks to quiet the victims, and
reward the perpetrators.

Secretary
Brown's solution to the first problem was to initiate a "zero-based" tolerance
for sexual harassment by providing training sessions to all employees
about the issue.

The
second problem was never addressed, because the agency simply does not
acknowledge that it engages in retaliatory activity.

A
great deal of discussion at that time revolved around the abysmal failure
of the EEO process to accord fair and impartial resolutions to management/employee
disputes, and to prevent retaliatory actions commonly engaged in during
the process.

I
am here today to tell you about the terrific frustration I have felt since
then at the agency's reluctance to assume responsibility for its own transgressions.

After
the hearing, the five of us who testified as WASH members were treated
as anomalies, and an embarrassment to the agency. We attempted to engage
Secretary Brown in a dialogue about sexual harassment by submitting a
proposal with our ideas about reform, but it was never acknowledged. We
understood that a task force was formed in Central Office, but we were
not asked to be a part of it. We were aware that this task force met at
least once, but then we heard no more about it. At the station level,
not only were our original jobs not restored, but we were still subject
to retaliatory actions. Our performance appraisals were lowered across
the board, and none of us were asked for input into Secretary Brown's
mandatory sexual harassment training program, although we were mandated
to attend it.

My
own experience was like this: Subsequent to the hearing, I was forced
out of station housing, and then lied to about the availability of other
housing on the campus. Unlike Mr. Calhoun of Fayetteville, I was not reimbursed
for moving expenses, and I was told point blank that I could not have
administrative leave for the moving day.

I
have been the subject of investigations. I was told at one point to "look
for another job". I was excluded from many functions that I had previously
been a part of. When my former supervisor retired, she never bothered
to fill out an appraisal on me. While I have always been concerned about
my lowered performance appraisals, I just recently discovered that they
are a key factor in the formula for determining terminations under reduction
in force authority. This means that I am a prime candidate to lose my
job under budget restrictions for our medical center this coming year.
While the senior management team that was responsible for the attempted
cover-up of sexual harassment at my medical center is now gone, (retired
of their own accord), it is clear that there are still repercussions attached
to the actions they took towards me.

The
women I testified with have all left the VA under terms of severe emotional
and sometimes physical disability.

Donna
Grabarczyk, whose harasser was generously allowed to retire, still suffers
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and was never able to return to work.

Rebecca
Ainlay, who was pinched, thrown to the ground and lunged on by her supervisor,
the Chief Pharmacist, attempted to return to work and was retaliated against
to the point where she was forced to leave. Subsequent to the hearing,
she had been hospitalized a number of times, and her weight dropped at
one point to eighty pounds. Her behavior had been characterized as "obsessive-compulsive"
by VA. The Director at that facility was simply transferred to another
position at the Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Management and
Education Center. A full two years after Ms. Ainlay testified, the Director
himself was finally charged with sexual harassment and "engaging in infamous,
immoral or notoriously disgraceful conduct." Rebecca recently settled
her case with VA just last December, and moved out of Tennessee.

Mary
O'Connor who was described as "provocative" by VA because she once held
a job as an airline stewardess, moved out of Massachusetts where she worked
at the North Hampton VA. She reports that to this day she is unable to,
physically unable to go in or near any VA medical center. Her perpetrator,
a physician, was transferred to the Springfield clinic from which he eventually
retired with an honorary going away dinner.

As
a support group, we often heard horror stories from other women. One particularly
egregious case involved a woman in Ohio, who was both sexually and racially
harassed by self-proclaimed VA employee members of the Ku Klux Klan. She
was stalked, threatened, and received hat mail with demeaning racial and
gender biased remarks, pornography, and sexual insults. She was subject
to unwelcome touching. Although formal notification of sexual harassment
was filed on August 31, 1992, this victim had to wait through three administrative
investigations before involving EEO with a formal complaint almost a full
year later. In January, 1994, eighteen months after her initial complaint,
an EEO investigation began. In the meantime, she was compelled to work
alongside her harassers, while the management staff at that medical center
ordered bullet-proof vests for their own protection! Unbelievably the
EEO found no discrimination, whereupon the victim filed a civil lawsuit
that was just settled in her favor last November. The management staff
of that facility were given $25,000 buyouts to retire during the settlement.

I
believe that the reason I am still healthy, and working at VA is because
I am the only one who did not file a grievance under the EEO system. The
EEO system still remains a divisive tool to intimidate and persecute.
It is a waste of government resources, taxpayer dollars, and human lives.
It lowers employee morale and diverts needed attention from patient care;
and ultimately, nobody wins.

In
closing, I would like to say that I am truly sorry that I was asked to
appear here again; it seems to me that life is a struggle enough without
having to go through these same issues again and again. The hallmarks
of truly great leadership include kindness, compassion, and the humility
to acknowledge mistakes. If VA truly wants to be an employer of choice,
the leadership must reflect these values in daily action, not in empty
words.

Sources: Speech
came from a webpage which no longer exists.

Copyright information: Gifts of Speech believes that for copyright purposes, this speech is in the public domain since it is testimony before the U. S. Congress. Any use of this speech, however, should show proper attribution to its author.